John Bisset

Lovely easy handling machines, Aeroncas. Speaking as the owner of a vintage Aeronca - a Champion rather than a Sedan - the earlier comments about handling and speeds are broadly correct. The wing section of the original provides a tractable, easy handling aircraft with excellent low speed characteristics for short landings. The useful speed range is small, like any relatively low powered aircraft of its era with the wing sections of the time. I also have flown modern section sailplanes and motor gliders; with much higher performance, they are also more likely to bite if mishandled. It will be interesting to see what the results of your modifications are, though it will not be a Sedan !   (Personally I'd start afresh rather than modify the kit, but each to his own - I wonder if the changes will make the model more sensitive near the stall? ) Around 2 degrees of dihedral is right for a Champion by my memory of the drawings. Edited By John Bisset on 15/01/2018 21:55:05

Thanks for that Cymax. I couldn't quite make it out, though my partner thought it was a C- registration. Quite a pleasant scheme; we have been debating colour schemes for our nearly-ready-to-fly rebuilt Stampe. (Actually I expect first flight early next year!) Bonny aeroplanes and gentle aerobats; true Colonel Aretsti style & era machines. Though some folk, like Neil Williams, Nick Bloom and the late much lamented Brian Lecomber could really make them sing !

Posted by cymaz on 26/07/2017 07:03:02: Flown at Greenacres in July What registration is that Stampe please, cymaz?

Thanks John s. - that advert is one of several showing a 1600 mm wingspan. I now suspect that is a translation or conversion error; the same wording appears in a number of places.

I hadn't heard of the Airsail Beaver before, DaveyP. Having had a quick look around the internet, it looks good, though I gather out of production now. If I understand the comments I found on a Facebook page for Airsail UK, at least the plans plus some parts might be available soon. I do have a copy of the Westwood plans for a 70" span Beaver which I haven't yet started. Not sure how I am going to produce a cowling yet. The type is something of a theme with me; good backwoods aeroplane, tough and fun to fly, though I've never flown the Turbo. A good radio control version will be fun, especially if its structure is as tough as the real beast!

Thanks Denis - so it's not just me ! I found some sites quoting 80 inch span (2032 mm), some 62 inch span (1600 mm ). Are there two variants of this kit available I wonder or has someone mistranslated metric dimensions? The manufacturer does seem to quote only one kit - SEA 268 or possibly SEA268F - and seems to specialise in larger kits. I suspect the smaller values are translation errors. Would be interesting to know if anyone on here has one. or knows of it. True BEB, that is more or less what my partner has just said ! Given my backlog and hoard of unbuilt and part built kits she is right in asking why. Greed ? It is a bonny beastie, and with all the hatches and twiddlly bits it's much better than I could ever make. Rather a weak justification, and even 'Christmas is coming' isn't fair either. Sigh...

Erflog, That observation of crows versus seagulls, and co-operative flying is intriguing. I have thought a few times that seagulls in particular seem to have a clear flock or group operation at times - as do crows - though not usually in such an apparently tit-for-tat self defence style. Crows and seagulls do quite often face off individually. Alternating wind and rain spells are inhibiting both model and real flying here, just as I have got my old Wot-4 repaired after stupidly using an old Futaba transmitter which set up for helicopters to try to fly it !

Hi. Has anyone got the Seagull DHC-2 Turbo Beaver model? If so, any comments? I am tempted by it, but am surprised by the weight quoted. If I understand the adverts, this model is about the same size as the E-Flite Beaver (sadly no longer available) yet the Seagull is quotes at an AUW of around 11.5 lbs against 5 1/2 to 6 lbs for the E-Flite. Both are apparently built up wooden kits with lightweight covering rather than foam formed; I wonder why the Seagull is so heavy. Presumably that affects flying characteristics, meaning fast landings and long take-offs.

To answer the original poster, I'd entirely agree with others here. It is not worth claiming that on your insurance for a ten year old Toyota. Either get a replacement from the nearest scrap merchant, or if it is a plastic bumper and the dent is small, get it filled and painted. The increase in future premiums plus the excess charge will outweigh the cost of a bumper - and frankly, at ten years old, the car's value is not high anyway. I tend to run my cars to end of economic life unless I change them early (rare). The final cut-off becomes when maintenance costs are rising each year and approach the lost opportunity cost of the capital required to replace it - or 'the Opex v Capex trade-off', in project engineer language. At ten years old you should have another five or six years of use at least, unless mileage is very high, but it is not really worth spending money on minor cosmetic points, in my view. Regards, John

Generally speaking, in the real thing a true flat spin only occurs with the CG well back towards its aft limit in machines with particularly powerful elevator and rudder effectiveness. Adding engine power can encourage a normal spin to go flat in some types, rather as Martin describes. The sensation is then of being thrown forward in the cockpit. Not particularly enjoyable in my opinion even when done deliberately and especially unpleasant if unexpected - as once happened in a two seat sailplane I was flying. Fortunately that was at height in wave and eventually full spin recovery plus airbrake to try to disturb things worked. With the CG well forward, many machines, both model and full size, develop what you describe; a spiral dive which may at first feel like a spin. Mr B's description of how to enter a spin works well for both models and many full size machines. My old style Wot4 spins nicely if I have the elevator and rudder throws on max rates. I haven't tried to get it to flat spin, suspect it would need careful addition of tail ballast to encourage that. (Again as Martin said) Edited By John Bisset on 10/10/2017 22:23:39

Witterers when I' m doing the pre-flight checks...

I agree with Martin's view that this sounds like a 'solution looking for a problem'. It is very easy just to be a cynic and nay-sayer, but additional systems add complexity, congest the airwaves and add cost , which means clear benefits should be demonstrated before implementation.   This might just possibly work where I am, in a fairly quiet rural part of the country. In, say, Southern England, I suspect the signal overload would mean either the systems would swamp and error signal or the pilots would ignore the constant squawks. (When use of Mode S for all gliders was mooted, we asked what would happen if we all launched form our airfields in SE England one weekend, the all turned on the kit. Expert view was that the related ATC systems in the area would freeze or drop out- which wouldn't please Heathrow, Gatwick. Luton, Stansted...) This will add cost and complexity to little safety gain- most certainly for model flying, where the risk is very low and the cost/benefit must be trivial. I don't consider it worthwhile for full size general aviation either where the additional cost will be disproportionate to any notional the gain. (I have already said so on the survey.)   I carry Mode S and FLARM in my aircraft. FLARM is very useful, and increasingly so for power use as well as glider avoidance - a major concern since part of the time I fly at a gliding site . Mode S is handy for zone transits and LARS traffic advisories, occasionally. Another add-on won't make much difference. One local ATC outfit already seems close to panic when they see more than two aircraft on their radar, so adding more signals will just add chaos. We have difficulty as it is getting the local military to take notice of our airfield circuit despite having a local agreement, and we also still get random incursions by private aircraft despite being shown on maps as an active winch launch site, so what effect will more systems and electronic warnings have? Probably little or nothing, and they encourage folk to look IN rather than look OUT. (Bah humbug, mutter, mutter, old instructor grumble...) For model flying all this is way over the top !   Martin I think gliders can still cross airways on direct routes where local agreements have been made. Some machines with Mode S can also get much easier upper airspace access in selected areas.   Edited By John Bisset on 16/09/2017 13:23:23

Olympia 419s are rare beasts now, though it does look about right - I had briefly thought Oly 463, but they are more humped, and probably even rarer! I'll guess Skylark2 or 3 and my partner thought it might just be a Ka8 - the distance makes it hard to see any fuselage angularity !

How very nice to see gliding mentioned - my first love in flying. Glad you enjoyed it John. Here are two short videos - one shows an ASH-25 low pass at near Vne from outside, at Aboyne, the other shows some flying at Portmaok and Aboyne using wingtip cameras - the single seater is a Libelle, an aircraft I owned for many eyars - superb soarer. The section at around 1m50s shows a low pass alongside Benarty Hill at Portmoak I believe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpP_h5uNGo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLtS0HynFaE Speedster - What an interesting section of video, especially since a Puchacz is not the fastest accelerating machine. (Guess how I know!). Am I right in thinking the altimeter in that machine is reading in metres? Unusual (in my experience) to have the zero point at the six o'clock position! Josip - a fine and reminiscent photo. Blaniks were fun machines, once I got used to the occasional boings and clanks in thermals! My hairstyle was rather like yours, way back then... Martin -  Fine beast the Pawnee. as is the Super Cub. Our Pawnees had 235HP and the Sup[er Cub 150HP, later increased to 180 HP which improved the climb rate but meant we lost some of the pleasant handling. The main benefit of the Pawnee in my club is its ruggedness when conditions get seriously turbulent. Like a big flying tractor. The Cub was a delight on a summer's day, as is the Eurofox, a modern build and popular tug today. Gosh, this makes me think I must get back to some gliding : i only fly tugs now! Thanks for this... Edited By John Bisset on 15/09/2017 22:18:52 Edited By John Bisset on 15/09/2017 22:19:12

Thank you Jim, shall check around. Still getting acquainted with this site !

Posted by Ikura on 10/09/2017 18:29:48: Posted by Martin Harris on 10/09/2017 18:28:59: As i understand it, heights are always measured against the point of launching. Many thanks. Yes - though that is something it would be very useful to clarify, especially for the slope soarers. If it isn't nailed down in the legislation it will become a point to argue - lawyers and prosecutors love that sort of ambiguity. We could get an unlucky outcome in the future which we'd dislike, Snag is, any example case law may not refer directly to radio control aircraft - there is often read across, so to speak. If possible it may be worth (a) asking for clarity on the datum pint for any height measurement, with a recommendation. Also it would seem sensible to request that, say, 1000ft be specified as a more reasonable height limitation, to allow for thermal soaring. That is something which could be modified by special local agreement, if also allowed for in the legislation as an acceptable option - which I think it will be for our CAA. Very hard to be sure, ploughing through all that ! Shall try to send a response.

What size motor, ESC, and battery would folk recommend for an electric conversion of the Puppeteer?

I broadly agree with your Peter (Jenkins) , however I think what may be concerning Erflog is that the wording of some of the comments from sources in authority are less than clear and can easily be interpreted as allowing for later additional restrictions. Sadly government bodies have a fair bit of previous history showing they cannot be trusted without very precise rules being set. I for one am not convinced by the involvement of the CAA being beneficial; nowadays they are very heavily driven by political will, not logic or fairness. Oh, and by cost - they must at least break even in what they do, and they are civil servants. Not cheap. They also have many fewer old style flying enthusiasts than they used to. Our hobby is a small matter to them overall; we will have little clout, so our only hope is to ensure NOW that we get what clarity we can. They mean well but their 'delivery' is poor at present- as an example have a look at the current rules and regulations for private pilot licencing. It is a shambles, largely of the CAA's own making. (No doubt EASA will be blamed, but the CAA have input to that body, so...! ) I have some current experience of the Authority's own internal confusion on this and other issues, sadly. Unintentional - but the consequences of major confusion in our area could affect many clubs and r/c pilots badly.However, I'd 'trust' the CAA before the DfT any day. Different agendas. I still don't see what is wrong with the simple LoS as definition of radio control machines versus drone. Sure LoS can be many things but a limit of say 1/2 mile maximum, worst case, would be hard to argue with. Can any of us see orientation of a model at that range? Guess maybe, but...   Edited By John Bisset on 29/08/2017 17:57:40 Edited By John Bisset on 29/08/2017 17:57:57

Likewise cymaz. My lady is a superb navigator, using old style skills with map, compass and pencil when doing flying navigation, and preferring not to use GPS on road nav. Better navigator than me !

The Hurricane, and a field to base her on, preferably in France since they are so much more aviation friendly than we have become! . Plus of course a Harvard for conversion training! And of course if it was a good enough win I could buy a suitable machine with which to waft myself and my partner (plus sundry r/c models) across to go play. Nothing too ostentatious you understand...

I agree with Geoff that contrast matters most of all. After yellow training bands, the RAF used to use dayglo orange for trainers, then red/white for conspicuity. Tests showed that neither stood out as well as all black, which is why the RAF's trainers are painted gloss black now. I use a medium blue and yellow swept back scheme on my motor glider to ensure reasonable contrast - that is especially on the wings, so that when head-on another aircraft will see blue - white - blue - yellow in contrasting stripes. Reports from others suggest it works. For models, since we are at fairly close range, I use strong contrasts with different styles top and bottom so that I can get a 'way up' picture. Again blue/yellow or blue/white works best for me Red/yellow looks pretty but is nit quite so good. 'Which way up?' picture gets harder as I get older!

Looks like an Aquila 210 or 211. Two seat, glassfibre, German built. http://www.aquila-aviation.de

The really strange bit is that I get that same issue, yet I am using two companies which are part of the same group. Every renewal, whichever company I am not using gives me a slightly better deal than I can get staying with the existing company. I have even been inadvertently transferred to the wrong company when talking to them by phone, so it's not as if they don't talk to one another. I can't see how this benefits them - new business from your colleagues isn't new business chaps! In fact it costs them, because every time, they send out a new policy handbook etc. Weird. Once upon a time 'loyalty' was rewarded by lower premiums. .   Edited By John Bisset on 03/08/2017 17:03:35

My understanding is that while there were several countries in Europe 'spoiling for a fight', the actual outbreak of hostilities was largely due to misunderstandings and errors by the various military planning staffs. Although there were plans for rapid deployment of troops towards the frontier jump-off positions by train, no-one had thought out how to satisfactorily bring them back in an orderly way from their mobilised positions. That exposed forces to a risk of a sneak attack succeeding, so that once deployed it was 'safer' to go into action than to back away. The senior staffs did not understand the implications of the new transport capabilities, nor the increased danger which machine guns and modern artillery etc. posed. They were, quite simply, ignorant - and generally far too slow to learn. Warfare had changed, greatly. So it was not only largely unjustified and to some extent accidental in its beginnings, but a war of a ferocity hitherto undreamed. Appalling. My family was lucky; we only lost one close relative in WW1. Edited By John Bisset on 31/07/2017 21:26:25 Edited By John Bisset on 31/07/2017 21:26:42

I have a couple of EPO models which I'd like to 'improve'. The relatively soft nature of EPO means that sharp trailing and rear edges are easily damaged. I'd like to reinforce some areas with a heat shrink material such as LighTex or Solarfilm- any thoughts or suggestions. I might need to use some thin plywood or plastic to reinforce one area - what glues are usable with EPO, does anyone know? I'd also like to paint some areas of the machines to aid contrast and orientation. What paints are safe to use on EPO please? Thanks, John B Edited By John Bisset on 31/07/2017 19:58:06